tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN December 4, 2012 1:00am-2:00am PST
a serious civil war has progressed. the obama administration has repeatedly warned even just moving chemical weapons would be a red line that could draw a swift response. just hours ago, president obama directly addressing the assad regime about this latest intelligence. >> today, i want to make it absolutely clear to assad and those under his command, the world is watching. the use of chemical weapons is and would be totally >> today, i want to make it absolutely clear to assad and those under his command, the world is watching. the use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable, and if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable. >> the world of course has been watching in horror at the atrocities committed by the syrian government. that's why this fear of chemical weapons is so real tonight. we want to show you new video posted on youtube reportedly showing families just after their neighborhood became the target of a regime rocket attack. like so much video out of syria, cnn cannot independently confirm
its authenticity. [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] >> you can see the sheer terror for those families, especially the young children, and it's important to note those were conventional rockets they're running from. imagine the fear if the regime produces sarin, loads it into artillery shells and fires it into neighborhoods. the situation there now so dangerous, the united nations announced today it is
immediately pulling all nonessential employees out of syria. arwa damon, one of the few western journalists inside syria right now. you have been to aleppo, where the assad regime has a chemical weapons plant. let's get perspective from the ground and start with the regime. what is it saying about this new u.s. intelligence and now new warnings from the united states all the way up to president obama about a red line on the use of chemical weapons? >> well, the regime has historically denied that it would use any sort of chemical weapons against its own population, but that is something of an empty promise, at least from the perspective of everyone we have been speaking to about this. many of those fighters that we talked on the ground do say they do believe the greater the stranglehold they have on regime forces in the city of aleppo grows, the greater the likelihood is that in a desperate attempt to somehow either regain control or wreak
mass havoc on the population, the regime would not hesitate when it comes to employing these types of weapons. and of course, when it does come to chemical warfare, there is very little if anything anyone here can do to protect themselves against that. >> well, that was to follow. do they have any defenses, are there any defenses and what are they doing to prepare for the prospect if they think that it's real? >> reporter: they have nothing. they have absolutely nothing. the people here have not had anything to begin with to protect themselves from the bullets and the bombs, and most certainly when it comes to chemical warfare, they have no defenses whatsoever, bearing in mind, too, that this is a population that is not just struggling with the violence and the ongoing strikes and artillery raining around them, it is also a population that is barely able to make ends meet. the prices here have skyrocketed astronomically to the point where bread, something that is a basic commodity, has become
something of a luxury. people are completely and totally helpless already in the face of the regime's air power and other artillery. they are going to be just as helpless in the face of any sort of chemical warfare if the regime does, in fact, decide to employ that. >> is there any sense among the rebels, the opposition, that perhaps they should be more cautious, take things more slowly, if they fear they could be reaching a potential tipping point that would push assad to take this desperate step? >> they realize that this is a fight until the very end and they most certainly are not going to be backing down, because they believe that if assad would not take this step now, that he would most certainly take it in the future. one also has to realize just how far this rebel fighting force has come with no international aid or no significant international aid whatsoever. they tell us that they have the majority of military bases in the city of aleppo and in the entire province, entirely under siege at this point. they have pushed regime forces
into around a third of the city pretty much in the southeastern portion of the city, and that is where most of the front lines lie. the military here for the most part is forced to air drop supplies to its troops that are stuck on these bases, on many occasions because of fire coming from rebel forces, those air drops miss their targets entirely. they are seeing a growing number of defections. they most certainly do feel despite the fact that it is an incredibly dangerous and very intense front line and there are multiple ones, i must say that, but they do feel that right now, they have the upper hand and while they have the upper hand, they are not going to back down because they quite simply cannot afford to lose any of the significant gains, any portion of this massive amount of territory that they have been able to capture so far. >> arwa damon inside syria for us. thank you. stay safe. >> thank you. for more on this let's bring in cnn national security contributor fran townsend, also
a member of the cia and homeland security external advisory boards and bob baer, former cia officer. let's go first to the president's warnings. pretty stern words. they came after secretary of state clinton said the use of chemical weapons by the regime would cross a red line. is the president drawing that line and is he bringing the united states any closer to military action in doing so? >> well, john, i think we ought to be clear. they could have left it today with secretary clinton's statement. i think this was a very deliberate point that the president was making. he is fully engaged in this issue. clearly the president's been briefed, he's talking to his cabinet. we should assume that the united states military has continued the operations on the table fully prepared ready to go. there has been talk about the chemical weapon seats in syria
for months. the military has had time to prepare. the administration has been clear, a military option is not where they want to have to go but i think the president's statement makes the point that they will go there if they have to, to assad and those around him. is that a message about future potential war crimes prosecutions or ist a message trying to encourage those around him to maybe get out of town, defect? >> well, i think it is -- it's sort of both to those around him, you know. you can stand with him and run the risk of being prosecuted or killed in a conflict, or you can turn but i think it's also a message not simply to the syrians around assad, i think it is also a subtler message to the iranian regime that is clearly continuing to support assad with weapons and training and advice, though i think it's both to those immediately around him and to iran. >> bob, given the iraq history, there could be some skepticism when the u.s. government starts talking about intelligence, weapons of mass destruction.
but there are multiple reports of intelligence in this case. how serious is this threat, the fact they're actually possibly mixing the chemical agents? >> oh, this is deadly serious. on iraq, a lot of it was hypothesis before we went in 2003, as the bush administration hyped that intelligence, but i guarantee you on syria, this is very real. this binary chemicals, they have the capability to put them in shells, to drop them by air, extremely dangerous. they are very advanced and they could do a lot of damage. secondly, i think what we have to understand is the minority regime there with its back against the wall will use the weapons. if it's death or taking care of the opposition, they will use them. there's no doubt in my mind. >> you say you have no doubt. explain why you have no doubt a little further. it is as you know a minority regime. does assad think he could use these weapons and survive or would it be if i have to go, i'm taking a lot of people with me?
>> it's that. it's the sampson option. i have been dealing with the aloites since the 1980s, how many years is that, 30 years? it's a mentality, closed mentality, almost a cult that runs that country. they think that if they don't hold on to damascus and the other major cities in syria, they will be destroyed as a community. they have nowhere to go. you have to look at it from their perspective. i don't agree with it but this is the way these people think and i have heard it repeated over and over again that they will use any weapons necessary to survive. i was in hamma after the city was destroyed, 25,000 people at least were killed. they are perfect capable of carrying out an attack like that right now. >> fran, when you hear such a sober, seasoned view from bob baer, you have been in the situation room, been in the contingency planning situations in the white house when
situations like this emerge. what kind of planning is taking place now and what does red line mean? does red line mean if you use those weapons we retaliate or does it mean if we actually see you loading up the artillery shells, if we see you moving them in a way you can use them, then we would strike? >> you know, your second question, john, we don't know the answer to that. that's obviously a discussion inside the situation room of the white house as we speak. the president is going to have to decide when is it too far to tolerate in terms of the progression to the actual deployment of a chemical weapon. i will tell you, i expect there's a number of things going on behind the scene right now. first and foremost, secretary of state is no doubt in contact with her counterpart and allies around the world, trying to foster an understanding of when, whether it be arab league or nato or our other allies in europe, when they would support some type of military intervention, would they be with us and under what circumstances, and for what scope of an
operation. i'm sure, you know, all of the regional allies that are affected, jordan, turkey, israel, all of them must be spoken to and coordinated with as well. so this is a very difficult sort of multi-layered chess game both for the secretary of state and the secretary of defense, who must also coordinate and try to build coalitions around this in the midst of this crisis. we will be sharing intelligence with our allies, the intelligence agencies will be talking among themselves so they are building a common comprehensive picture of the situation on the ground. so there's a lot of activity that's going on, diplomatically, militarily and in the intelligence circles that we just don't see. >> bob, i almost hate to ask the question but for somebody who is unfamiliar, if assad is mixing sarin gas, were he to use sarin gas, what are we talking about? >> we're talking about the kill radius of a small nuclear weapon.
very lethal. it would wipe out a whole neighborhood. there is no antidote the locals have for it. we're talking tens of thousands dying in an attack. >> sober message tonight. thank you both. let us know what you think. follow us on twitter. when we come back here in washington, time is running out for lawmakers to strike a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff. negotiations appear to be turning much more into a game of political brinksmanship. both parties pointing the finger at the other. we're keeping them honest next. ? [ male announcer ] this is amy. amy likes to invest in the market.
we're keeping them honest. looking for facts, not offering our opinions or playing favorites. we're not supporting democrats or republicans. you can go to other cable channels for that. our goal is reporting, finding the truth and calling out hypocrisy. tonight the people you elected to go to washington and get things done can't seem to make any progress at all on the looming fiscal cliff. instead, what we have is a game of finger pointing, both democrats and republicans, what else, blaming each other for the lack of a deal. now, keep in mind time is of the essence here. automatic tax hikes and spending cuts will go into effect in just four weeks if your members of congress can't come together and do a deal. on paper, it shouldn't be too hard.
it's the job the american people elected them to do and the american people expect results. they want compromise. in fact, two separate cnn/orc polls, in those polls, an overwhelming number of people, 72%, said both sides should do a better job working together in general. so the people, that's you, want compromise. yet this is how the men and women on capitol hill, the men and women you elected to work for you, have responded over the last 48 hours. >> i think we're going over the cliff. >> it's unfortunate that the white house has spent three weeks doing basically nothing. >> what we can't do is sit here trying to figure out what works for them. >> the president's idea of a negotiation is roll over and do what i ask. >> it's pretty clear to me they've made a political calculation. >> if their ideas are different from ours, we can't guess what they are. >> we look forward to the time when they are specific. >> they need to be more specific. >> some specificity from republicans. >> some of their specifics. >> that's a decision that lies in the hands of the republicans. >> i was disappointed by the president's initial proposal. >> he can't be serious.
>> haven't even begun to be serious. >> we need to get serious. >> i don't think they're serious. >> i would say we're nowhere. period. we're nowhere. >> hard to disagree with that. we're nowhere. period. your congress and the white house at work. did i mention a gallup survey out today found more than half of those surveyed said lawmakers have low or very low ethical standards? according to that gallup survey, congress members only slightly more trusted than car salesmen. when people were asked in our cnn/orc poll about what they thought washington officials would behave like in these fiscal cliff discussions, 28% said responsible adults. 67% said spoiled children. spoiled children. low ethical standards. if ever there was a time for elected officials to step up and prove they don't deserve that reputation, well, it would be now. house republicans today did offer a counter proposal on the fiscal cliff. their plan, $2.2 trillion deficit savings over the next decade, but it does not include higher tax rates for the wealthy.
the house speaker john boehner calls it a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the white house. guess what? the white house released a statement tonight saying the plan is nothing new, that it lowers rates for the wealthy and sticks the middle class with the bill. so to borrow a phrase, we're nowhere. period. david walker is president and ceo of comeback america initiative. he's made it his mission to promote fiscal responsibility. he joins us along with cnn political analyst, david gergen. david walker, let me start with you. the house republicans put forward their counter proposal. speaker boehner says it's credible and the white house should consider it. is it credible or is it more of what you have called the irresponsible unethical immoral behavior of all the politicians here in washington? >> i think both sides are now putting things on the table but i think they're confused. what we have to do in the short term is avoid the fiscal cliff. the major decisions with regard to tax reform, social insurance programs, et cetera, can't and shouldn't be made until next year, after the american people are engaged and the committees do their work. >> david gergen, how do you get
the political solution that opens the door to the policy conversations? >> well, i was encouraged that the republicans actually came forward with something today. a lot of people thought they would not. the president as you know, his team rejected it late this afternoon, but nonetheless, if people truly want to find a bridge to avoid the fiscal cliff, a way to get to the big issues as david walker says would have to come next year, i think they're the makings of it here. each side will have to compromise some more. each side will have to eat a little crow but i think it's imperative that the president take the view that what he's looking for is a win-win. if they take a win-win approach, i think they can get a deal. >> comment on that point. if two wrongs don't make a right but the two nonstarters maybe make a starter, how would you help them get there? >> look, i think there's a way to bridge this and for both sides to save face. we ought to be trying to get a credible down payment and a one year extension to get a grand bargain. for example, you can increase the effective tax rates of the wealthy and the share that they.
limit the deduction for people above a certain level. let them be treated just like me. i'm subject to amt. let them only get deductions really for charitable contributions and for interest on a mortgage. you know, on medicare, start making more means testing for medicare premiums. right now, 95% of people get a 75% subsidy for their premium, irrespective of income and wealth. start having more means tested premiums for people above a bar. they need to get to work. >> david gergen, david walker, just gave you at least a short-term path. but, but to get that short term path at least in the short term, sounds like the president would have to give up that trophy, the higher rates in the short term. you've advised four presidents, democrats and republicans. do you think this president is ready to do that? >> i'm not so sure, john. i have to tell you that over the last two years, i think it was
the republicans who showed an arrogance, a resistance to sort of reasonable compromise, but since this election, there have been -- i think the democrats are the ones who are really trying to rub it in and almost humiliate the republicans, and that's not going to get to a bargain. again, i think it has to be win-win. david walker's a magician at this kind of thing. there are creative solutions to this but it does take both parties. we truly wanted an agreement and there is -- you hear among some democrats right now and it's disturbing, that maybe we just ought to take it over the cliff, we'll score political points against the republicans, force their hand in the new year. that is a very, very dangerous risky path. >> that raises the question, david walker, do they get it? you say they're confused about the fiscal cliff and the long term challenge of a grand bargain but do they get it? are they stuck in their idealogical vault on both sides and they don't see the stakes? >> they're way too involved in partisan politics, not enough listening to the american people.
there is only one kind of mandate that occurred in the election in november, because the public returned the republicans to the house, the democrats to the senate, and president obama to the white house. they want them to start solving problems. they are absolutely disgusted with this and if they go over this cliff, believe me, there's going to be a price to be paid and nobody's going to be a winner on it. >> yeah, but i do want to add, john, i do believe the president did get a partial mandate, at least the voters said the wealthy in this country ought to pay higher taxes. now, how you get to the higher tax, whether you raise rates, whether you reduce deductions, there are a lot of different ways to get there. the point is, i think everybody now agrees that -- not everybody agrees, but that we need more revenue and that the wealthy ought to be the first ones in line. and that seems to be reasonable, but i think the white house can get too stuck on this whole question of rates as opposed to finding a creative solution that brings in more money.
>> david, i agree with you, but you do that through effective tax rates, not through marginal tax rates. that's how you bridge it. >> i agree with that. >> two very smart davids. gentlemen, thank you. >> thank you. there is such a fog of partisanship that envelopes this whole debate, it's difficult at times to discern what these proposals would actually mean in the real world. all this week we will break it down, cut through the spin and find out what impact different parts of the proposals to avert that fiscal cliff will really have. tonight we tackle the much-discussed concept of increasing tax rates for the top 2%. chief business correspondent ali velshi joins me now. help us cut through the spin. the partisans all have a different take on this. if you raise taxes on the top 2%, what's the impact? what does it look like and how much of an impact would it have on the deficit? >> well, let's look at it in two ways. one is income tax, right? right now, the highest earners, those households that earn more than a quarter million dollars a year, pay a higher tax rate on the marginal amount, the amount
above the $250,000 a year. so we're talking about taking that rate from 36% to 39.6% if we even go there. that hasn't even been negotiated yet but that's 3.6% on every dollar you earn above $250,000. there are not a lot of studies that suggest that that would have catastrophic effects on the economy. the other area that democrats want to raise taxes are on investment income, things like capital gains, dividend income. now, those will jump significantly. here's the thing. very few of these benefits affect middle class workers. it does affect the higher income earners and the question you have to ask is will it affect their spending patterns and the thinking amongst democrats and among many liberal economists is that you don't spend the marginal money that you earn in the same way you spend the core money that you earn, so the impact won't be as big. it's not to say that there's no impact and it would be better for the economy if we were not raising taxes on anybody and possibly lowering taxes, but
there's a doomsday scenario that's been put out there about what would happen if you raise taxes on the top 2%. we don't have a lot of studies to back that up. >> you say not a lot of studies to back that up because that is the principle republican argument. they say the recovery is so weak, if you raise taxes on the top 2% right now you will hurt the job creators at a time we all know the economy needs jobs. any validity to that argument? or is it all spin? >> well, i mean, taxes under reagan started at a 70% marginal rate, went down to 50% roughly. in 1986, came down closer to those clinton era tax rates, 39%. we have seen nothing but lower taxes over the last generation. if we have been enjoying low taxes, why are the jobs not being created right now. there's not no validity. we really, really looked into this. you don't generally speaking want to be raising taxes on people if you can avoid it. it costs you competitiveness. but the argument that somehow you're going to see this explosion in economic growth by not increasing those taxes by 3.6% doesn't seem to hold water.
we're in a different economy now. there aren't really mathematical formulas you can use to apply to it. it all depends on growth rates and growth rates often depend on confidence in the economy. so there are a few variables here that you can't account for. >> ali velshi, thank you. >> my pleasure. internet security guru john mcafee in hiding wanted for questioning in belize in the death of his neighbor. martin savidge got the first on-camera interview with mcafee since he went on the run. an interview almost as bizarre as the story itself. that's next.
between the two neighbors. two days after the dogs were poisoned, mcafee's neighbor was shot in the head. mcafee says he didn't kill him but that he's afraid for his own life and that authorities in belize are after him because he refused to pay a bribe to a politician. cnn's martin savidge was the first reporter to find mcafee and interview him on camera since he went on the run and the details surrounding that exclusive interview were almost as bizarre as the case itself. take a look. >> reporter: the search to find john mcafee began right here at the airport not long after i landed. it began with three simple words, sorry, i'm late. a prearranged code word to let me know i had met the person who would take me to mcafee. but it wasn't that easy. what followed was a long drive through winding, twisting streets and when you thought it was coming to an end, instead we get into a parking lot, quickly jump out, get into another vehicle, drive off again, this time with switchbacks, u-turns and back alleys. it was clearly meant to confuse us as well as anyone following. and then, there we were.
face-to-face. observation number one. with john mcafee there is no such thing as a simple answer. you are john mcafee. >> i think so. yes. i am john mcafee. >> reporter: he seemed nervous, anxious, fidgety. are you afraid? >> wouldn't you be, sir? >> reporter: he used that sir thing a lot. his hair is jet black, part of his disguise, he says, and by his own admission, he's vain, asking us to wait for his hair to dry before starting our interview. and that interview ranged from completely convincing, like when i asked him about his neighbor's murder -- did you kill him? >> i barely knew the man and why would i kill him? he was a neighbor that lived 200 yards down the beach. >> reporter: -- to off the wall. do you really believe the government is -- this is a vendetta by the government of belize to take you down and kill you? >> absolutely, sir. >> reporter: he says he's not on drugs and he hasn't touched
alcohol in 30 years. but he has started smoking again which he puts down to current circumstances. and he's not alone. running with his 20-year-old girlfriend and mcafee, who is 67, openly speaks of many more. >> it's absolutely real that i had six -- how many? >> reporter: it seemed almost surreal right down to the coffee i drank with him. before we parted, there was one more question i had to ask of the software genius. are you a smart man? i know you're an intelligent man. >> i don't think so. if i were smart, would i be here? i'm a foolish man. i know that much. >> reporter: you know what? i believe him. >> martin savidge joins me live. let's start here. how did you originally find john mcafee? >> reporter: you know, john, this was an interview that was weeks in the making, actually, and initially coming down here
on the first trip was just to make contact with him. the physical logistics of it were tough, but it was earning his trust that was even more difficult. the man is extremely paranoid. he says that by his own admission. so i think what was key was that last friday, after we had talked many times, the gut feeling of our team was let's go to belize and when we would get to belize, even though nothing had been promised, nothing set up, i called him on the phone and said look, we're here, we're ready to listen, and that seemed to be what broke the logjam and he said okay, we're going to get together. and we did. so that's how it came about. it was part gut and it was intuition and just the network saying let's go. >> smart reporting. smart reporting. he's now posted on his blog that he's out of belize. anyone know where he is now? >> reporter: no, and you know, i got to say that with the one thing i learned about john mcafee, he's an incredible self-promoter and i'm not saying that you can't trust what he says, it's just that independently, we have not been able to confirm what he has
reported on his blog that he is out of the country. the authorities i've spoken with them and they say as far as they know, they still believe he is in the country but let's face it, mexico is not very far away to the north and guatemala is also right next door so those are two very likely possibilities. you know, like everything else with john mcafee, you're simply going to have to wait and see but i would point out the most important thing to remember is the 52-year-old american who was murdered, somebody killed him. his family grieves as do his friends here on the island, and it's the justice for him that really needs to be found. >> fascinating reporting. persistence from martin savidge. thanks. tonight, george zimmerman's lawyers want to know what took prosecutors so long to turn over this photograph of their bloodied client taken the night he killed trayvon martin. will this new image help prove their case that zimmerman shot the teen in self-defense? w?
in crime and punishment, new questions tonight on the trayvon martin case. take a look at this photograph released today by george zimmerman's lawyers. it was taken they say by a police officer the night their client killed the unarmed teenager. you can see there is blood on zimmerman's face and his nose looks swollen. it's the clearest image that surfaced of those injuries described in a police report from that night. zimmerman says he killed martin in self-defense after the teen attacked him, slamming his head against the ground and breaking his nose. zimmerman's lawyers want to know why prosecutors waited until now, until october, to give them the photograph. earlier, the state had turned over a much grainier black and white version of that image. take a look at them side by side. you can see how much clearer the digital version is, but will it help zimmerman's defense? in a statement today, a lawyer for the martin family said quote, this isn't a new photograph. this is a color photograph we have already seen. there would be no interaction between trayvon martin and george zimmerman had zimmerman
not gotten out of his car. like the police said, this was ultimately avoidable if george zimmerman had waited in his car and let the police do their job. he also said they're still waiting for x-rays documenting zimmerman's alleged broken nose. mark o'mara, george zimmerman's attorney, joins me now. you have been involved in a number of high-profile cases. what do the police say? why is it from the prosecution side it took you so long to get the high resolution photo as opposed to the grainy black and white? >> well, it's just one example of the frustration that we've had in this case getting some discovery. again, we got the grainy black and white in the beginning. we then continued to ask for, we actually got a second one which was a color copy of a picture and finally last month we finally got the digital photo. it's just frustrating because this type of evidence should have come out day one and quite honestly, i think would have gone a long way to quelling all of the anger against george that was sort of propounded by some of the trayvon martin family
handlers who just turned this into much more than it ever was in the beginning. >> well, we are where we are now. you heard mr. martin's family saying you've seen the earlier photo, he dismisses it, saying it's not significant, just hd, that you've already seen the black and white version. how do you think specifically this helps your client? >> well, i think it truly just shows there's blood sort of flooding from his nose, you can see that. you can really see the nose, it's a much better picture, so is it devastating, no, but it's just one piece of evidence that shows what george was going through that night and why he reacted the way he did. again, as other evidence that we showed concerning who was the one who was screaming for help that night, there was some other evidence that came out, it was referenced in a motion that it was george and this type of evidence just needs to come out six, seven months ago. >> you filed a motion friday to get the full audio tape of the interview done by the martin family with the witness believed to be his girlfriend. how crucial is that? what are you looking for and how crucial is it to your case?
>> first of all, i think it is the crucial witness of the state's case is the person who was on the phone with trayvon martin just before the incident happened. my frustration is that they've had it since march. we have a copy which first was redacted, of course, and you can tell that it's been edited at least half a dozen to a dozen times. my frustration is i don't have a copy of the digital format file and it's absurd that i still don't have it. if it's in mr. crump's hands, he should turn it over to law enforcement. if not, he should be subpoenaed to turn it over. that is crucial evidence. i deserve it and my client deserves it. >> let me come back one last point about that new hd version of the photo we've seen. mr. crump, martin family attorney, says he's still waiting for the x-ray of george zimmerman's nose to determine whether it was actually broken. what can you tell us about that and when will it be ready? >> well, mr. crump knows because he saw the medical records before i did, since they were forwarded to him from the state attorney's office, there are no
x-rays because mr. zimmerman when he went to the doctor the next day, he really went to be cleared for work. they suggested he get some x-rays and he didn't do it. obviously in retrospect, now that this is an issue, i wish we had x-rays. however, now that we have that picture, i'll let the judge decide, i'll let a jury decide as to whether or not that, in george's mind, was great bodily injury and of course we have the hits to the back of the head on cement which also suggests great bodily injury. no x-rays but i'm quite okay with that. >> thanks for your time. >> sure. digging deeper, how big of a deal is this from a prosecutor's perspective? the former los angeles deputy district attorney, marcia clark, author of "guilt by degrees" joins me now. you just heard mr. zimmerman's attorney, mr. o'mara, saying if that high resolution photo had
been released on day one, at least in the court of public opinion, it would be a very different picture of his client. do you agree? >> not really. i cannot say that i think it's such a big game changer. we did see the black and white photograph. it's not as detailed, of course, as is the one that shows actual color, and the blood as well. i agree with that. but we did see photographs as you've shown of the back of the head, we saw him with the police in their custody immediately after, we could see the cuts to the back of his head, we could see the blood there, we could see there was some kind of injury to the front of the face. this does certainly corroborate his claim that there was a confrontation between them, that there was a violent struggle. i don't think even the trayvon martin's family attorney would disagree there was some kind of confrontation between them and a physical altercation. the bottom line, john, though, is does this photograph, this new one, the digital photograph, mean that we no longer have to listen to what or evaluate the credibility of george zimmerman's claim that he acted in self-defense when he shot trayvon martin.
no, it doesn't. it doesn't take away from the fact that we still have to believe george zimmerman's version of the events in order to acquit him. this photograph does not change that. >> and does the complaining, the case from mr. o'mara that the prosecution for whatever reason is stalling, that they give him first the grainy black and white photo, then another photo, then finally the color hd photo, does that have any sway with the jury? as he also shows them the photos and tries to say see the blood, this is self-defense? does questioning the prosecution's tactics, does that help? >> well, certainly the defense does do that, which is why -- just in general, i have to say, john, you never want to mess around with discovery. it's so important. a defendant has the right to defend himself, has a right under the constitution to confront and cross examine witnesses against him and part of that right means that he gets to see the information and the evidence that's going to be presented so he can prepare his defense. and i think it's always inadvisable for the prosecution to hold back evidence that they know they have, you know. you've got to hand it over, you've got to give the defense a chance to look at it.
it's never going to look good to a jury if the defense can get up and say hey, you know what, you didn't give me this for months and months and months. he had this tape recording, had this evidence, had this photograph, and he held on to it and sat on it and didn't turn it over to me until yesterday, for example. that never looks good. will it make a difference in terms of the ultimate outcome, i doubt it, because these things are being turned over prior to trial. now, if something's being turned over in the midst of trial, literally at the last minute, that can look very bad. that can make a jury turn on the prosecution and say why are you hiding this, why do you feel you need to hide it if you have a strong case, why would you do that? but that's not what's happening here. he's claiming that they delayed in the turning over of the evidence. if that's true, they shouldn't do it. and i think that whatever they do have in their possession now, including the tape recording, should be turned over immediately and let the defense look at it. no reason to hide anything here. >> you say you doubt that this particular photo would be particularly persuasive. you doubt that.
but do you think it will be the centerpiece of the defense case in terms of what you've seen in the public domain so far? is this image which does show, you're right about the back of the head but this also shows significant injuries to the face, is that the centerpiece of their case as you see it from what's available to us publicly? >> it will be part of the centerpiece for sure, john, because it does show that there's injury to the front of the face. it shows it more graphically than the other ones have. the injuries to the back of the head combined with a bloody nose, he has a bloody nose. let me point out, it's not the most devastating bloody nose i have ever seen. and there is some swelling there. bear in mind that he could have, you know, damaged his nose banging his head on the front of the pavement. there's a lot of ways where you can -- a lot of opportunities and a lot of ways you can hurt your nose without being assaulted or violently attacked by someone. like i said, i'm sure they will use this photograph and all of the other photographs that show a bloody situation, bloody face, bloody head, but at the end of the day, the jury is going to have to believe what george zimmerman says about who was the aggressor. that's going to be the bottom line.
they discussed the murder-suicide with our affiliate kctv asking the public to keep them and the belcher family in their hearts. crews in japan removing nine bodies from a collapsed tunnel outside of japan. police say a section of concrete more than 350 feet long fell from the ceiling. pope benedict is joining the twitterverse. he's encouraging the public to ask questions using the hash tag, ask pontiff x or b xvi. the vatican says this is the tip of the iceberg for the church's presence in new media. now you know. >> you going to have a twitter conversation with the pope? >> i was expecting to have a twitter battle for followers. i expect that kind of thing from you. >> i suspect the pontiff will win handily. >> i think he might. >> deserves to. isha, thanks. next, the reaction to the huge news from across the pond. prince william and catherine, the duchess of cambridge, expecting their first child. she's in the hospital with severe morning sickness. the latest on her condition and
trending all day on twitter. the duke and duchess of cambridge, william and kate, are expecting their first child. their baby will be third in line to the throne. a safe bet the next nine months will be the focus of many, many more tweets. the news not entirely unexpected. they have been married 19 months and they have said they want a family. they were forced, though, to
break the news earlier than they had planned. here's cnn international's max foster. >> reporter: the pregnancy rumors started soon after they got married, not helped by the fact that princess diana got pregnant in her first year of marriage, as did the queen. a year and a half passed and this was the duchess on friday, visiting her old school. she was on fine form, even playing hockey in high heels. we now know she was pregnant but less than 12 weeks gone. after the visit, kate went to stay with her parents at their new home in bucklebury where she met up with prince william. but on monday she took a turn for the worse. she suffered acute morning sickness and the couple returned to london for hospital treatment. the duchess will be receiving nutrients but most importantly, she will be getting lots of rest. messages of congratulations have been flooding in. >> it's absolutely wonderful news and i'm delighted for them. i'm sure they'll make absolutely brilliant parents and i'm sure everyone around the country will be celebrating with them tonight.
>> reporter: the media have been waiting for this story with bated breath. the palace was forced into an early announcement because of kate's hospitalization. but a royal source tells me they're not unduly concerned about her condition at this point. >> max foster joins us live from london. max, you say not unduly concerned. any sense at all of when she will be released or whether there's any cause for alarm? >> reporter: well, she'll be in for a few days. that's all we know at this point. she's receiving various treatments here. she has to rest, that's the main thing and if she's not eating properly, she needs to get the nutrients she needs. they're not taking any chances on this one. this is one of the best hospitals in the uk. i have to say there's been a